Big C's "Is It the Talent" Poll

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Rajmahal33

Yes, last season went downhill because of unusual and unforeseen circumstances (injuries, new coaching systems, underperforming vets, late-season QB change, etc) and I agree that u can't evaluate a FO's performance based on a single season's outcome. However, Cerrato and the others have repeatedly and gotten things wrong. Many of their high-profile draft picks haven't panned out the way that they should have. On top of that they have traded away picks like they were just afterthoughts and spend lavish sums on players that have ended up not only underperforming but have messed with the teams chemistry. Even the players that we have developed we have let go to FA and trade. I just think that for a great franchise like the washington redskins, its a shame that we expect so little from the FO because we have been trained to overlook their role as a product of the "skins being the skins". For that reason it is time for some change

I get so tired of people blaming coaching systems/playbooks. It's a bunch of BS. Our offense sucked in the begining becasue we didn't have a good QB and the line was playing below average. New Orleans got new playbooks on offense and defense. The differnece is they have good players that play well together.

[diehardskin2982]

I agree with the EGO on this one...

Offense has all the talent to be virtually unstoppable

Defense had the right mix in 2005 and then the coaches/ players ego's got in the way and we let some key people go chasing big name free agents.

[skinsfan_nn]

I beleive this year we are doing business differently than in the last couple of off seasons, we are making better decisions. I think it has taken a little more time than most expected for Joe to addapt to the new NFL, but I think Joe has a good game plan and he's sticken to it, and it's going to take a team effort all the way across the board to make it work. With that being said if anyone can get it done, he's got my vote.

Excluding a couple of moves I believe we can make in the Draft or FA on the D- line, we have all the tools, including team chemistry to be really good with the players we have on both sides of the ball. Furthermore, I think this year we are in for a real surprise, Joe is going to make a BIG statement, that the game hasn't passed him by.

As far as the GM I'm not against it at all, a smart GM that can get along, working with Joe and the rest of the FO. would be a great move. Free up the coach's time to do what he does best,coach. We all know Joe's time is limited.

I think he wants nothing more than to set our team structure up for long term sucess. Return this GREAT TEAM TO GLORY, then ride off into the Carolina sunset.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I get so tired of people blaming coaching systems/playbooks. It's a bunch of BS. Our offense sucked in the begining becasue we didn't have a good QB and the line was playing below average. New Orleans got new playbooks on offense and defense. The differnece is they have good players that play well together.

I agree with you, and I disagree. Let me elaborate...

I agree wholeheartedly that the Coaching staff can not be blamed for sustained failure. Good schemes can provide a decisive edge on a single game level, but over the course of the season, NO coach will outscheme all his opponents. If the end of the season rolls around, and a team has on the whole put in a sub par performance, then only the players are to be blamed. The coaching factor will ALWAYS even out over 16 games. Coaches will not be a decisive factor between a 10-6 team, and a 5-11 team.

Early season, the losing was almost exclusively a defensive issue. Through the first half of our season, the only thing this team had going for it was the passing game. Our passing game completely fell off the map once Brunell was replaced by Campbell. This wasn't because Campbell was playing exceptionally poorly, but because our offense missed our "puss-armed" QB coming out and completing 63% week in and week out. Campbell was throwing at a Vick-like 51% through his first five starts and our offense was suffering. We lost a very significant yard and a half per attempt with #17 in. Luckily, Cooley made a gamebreaking play vs. Carolina and the defense held New Orleans quiet, or JC would have been without a win this year.

The line certainly picked up their play in the 2nd half giving Campbell time that Brunell never had, and opening planet sized holes for Ladell Betts that Portis never had. But our power/short yardage running game completely sucked all year, and without Brunell to complete short 3rd down passes, the combination of Campbell's inaccuracies and lack of a short game made us one of the leagues worst teams in third and short.

It was so bad that the 2006 Redskins had a better shot to convert 3rd and 5 than they did to convert 3rd and 2. No lie.

In summary: quit blaming coaching staffs, quit blaming Brunell, fix the defense, and god damn it fix the short yardage running game (get another TE who can block in there).

Lets get er done.

[dmek25]

i really agree with the short yardage problem. its kind of ironic that this was the redskins specialty in coach Gibbs first go round. the skins couldn't convert a short yardage situation last year for sh**. and i am not quite sure why? and i am really puzzled why the wouldn't go to duckett in those situations

[Meks]

i agree with THE EGO... al saunders screwed everything up.... and the defense just wasnt playing well at all last year.

[backrow]

I agree with Matty's and GTripps assessments. The Poll lacks enough choice answers to properly respond imho.

[EXoffender]

D. All of the above. Not only is the FO not good at scouting, the team has a coaching staff that's unable to coach and motivate young players. So in turn, they throw too much money at FAs who have played their best football for their former teams. There's a science to building a winning team. It's not plug and play.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

D. All of the above. Not only is the FO not good at scouting, the team has a coaching staff that's unable to coach and motivate young players. So in turn, they throw too much money at FAs who have played their best football for their former teams. There's a science to building a winning team. It's not plug and play.

I'm curious as to just what role our scouting department actually plays in aquiring players, and to what extent their decisions matter. Because our FO is constructed without a GM it's difficult to determine just who is making the decisions. Our biggest problem could be in how many different people have a hand in the selection process. In most well run organizations, the scouting department makes recomendations to the GM, and after a process of evaluation players are chosen.

I agree with Kattyk in that CHANGE seemed to be the greatest obstacle last year. There were far too many differences to adjust too, players, coaches, injury, schemes and just overall poor play and execution on both sides of the ball. I also feel that since we won't be going into the season talking Super Bowl, it may aid in the players concentration and they won't be sidetracked by that culprit of overconfidence.

[Longtimefan]

Sorry!!! Matty, I'll get it right next time. Sometime I fail to proof read what I type.

[rvd420]

i think the reason we're not winning is cause we have no team chemistry and we have an owner who doent know football,and thinks he can buy a championship.hes like a kid in a cany store.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree with you, and I disagree. Let me elaborate...

I agree wholeheartedly that the Coaching staff can not be blamed for sustained failure. Good schemes can provide a decisive edge on a single game level, but over the course of the season, NO coach will outscheme all his opponents. If the end of the season rolls around, and a team has on the whole put in a sub par performance, then only the players are to be blamed. The coaching factor will ALWAYS even out over 16 games. Coaches will not be a decisive factor between a 10-6 team, and a 5-11 team.

Early season, the losing was almost exclusively a defensive issue. Through the first half of our season, the only thing this team had going for it was the passing game. Our passing game completely fell off the map once Brunell was replaced by Campbell. This wasn't because Campbell was playing exceptionally poorly, but because our offense missed our "puss-armed" QB coming out and completing 63% week in and week out. Campbell was throwing at a Vick-like 51% through his first five starts and our offense was suffering. We lost a very significant yard and a half per attempt with #17 in. Luckily, Cooley made a gamebreaking play vs. Carolina and the defense held New Orleans quiet, or JC would have been without a win this year.

The line certainly picked up their play in the 2nd half giving Campbell time that Brunell never had, and opening planet sized holes for Ladell Betts that Portis never had. But our power/short yardage running game completely sucked all year, and without Brunell to complete short 3rd down passes, the combination of Campbell's inaccuracies and lack of a short game made us one of the leagues worst teams in third and short.

It was so bad that the 2006 Redskins had a better shot to convert 3rd and 5 than they did to convert 3rd and 2. No lie.

In summary: quit blaming coaching staffs, quit blaming Brunell, fix the defense, and god damn it fix the short yardage running game (get another TE who can block in there).

Lets get er done.

WHuuuuwuwuwuut!!!?

Coaching cannot be blaimed for the sustained failure of a team!? Coaching always evens out over the course of a season?

Um, yeah it can and no it doesn't. That's like one of the craziest things I've ever heard.

"Early season, the losing was almost exclusively a defensive issue. Through the first half of our season, the only thing this team had going for it was the passing game."

So which one was it, a defensive problem or an everthing but the passing game problem? So, while you where watching games you were honestly thinking, "If only the rest of our team could catch up to our passing game?"

"Our passing game completely fell off the map once Brunell was replaced by Campbell. This wasn't because Campbell was playing exceptionally poorly, but because our offense missed our "puss-armed" QB coming out and completing 63% week in and week out. Campbell was throwing at a Vick-like 51% through his first five starts and our offense was suffering. We lost a very significant yard and a half per attempt with #17 in. Luckily, Cooley made a gamebreaking play vs. Carolina and the defense held New Orleans quiet, or JC would have been without a win this year."

Our passing was not dangerous enough to keep defenses honest with Mark Brunell at QB. It became more and more and more obvious as his tenure wore on here. He was saved by the running game two years ago, and he hurt the running game last year. He hurt the offensive line. The gamebreaking play by Cooley is a perfect example. Cooley made that play because JC hit him down the field in stride. And because Jason could go deep and avoid the rush, oposing defenses couldn't stack the box or blitz at will without the fear of getting burned. And by the way, MB's stats from last year lie. He made a lot of those completions when games were out of hand, and yes our defense was terrible.

This kind of leads me to my answer to the original poster. I agree with the guy who said that these problems are not black and white, but are very complex, as are most problems in life.

I would also say that we have a talent issue on this team. And, in fact, the coaching staff, and above all Joe Gibbs, has a HUGE impact on deciding which players we actually keep or go after. So this coaching staff is not ONLY responsible for getting the players we do have to play, and putting them in a position to do so succesfully, but in deciding who those players are. If they know enough about these players to help pick them, then they should also be responsible to know how to USE them. Our players weren't particularly well picked or well used last year, but more than anything, the one position that you have to pick a good player is at quarterback. Joe Gibbs is responsible for picking Mark Brunell. And it became clear that Mark Brunell was never going to take us very far, so Joe Gibbs is responsible for keeping him in there too long as well. But Gibbs is also responsible for giving up a lot to draft JC. You see, although most problems in life are complex, the simplest part of the problem with the Washington Redskins is at quarterback. We haven't had one who's worth a damn in a long time. Fixing the franchise begins at QB, JC or otherwise.


Sorry my posts are always so damn long.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree with you, and I disagree. Let me elaborate...

I agree wholeheartedly that the Coaching staff can not be blamed for sustained failure. Good schemes can provide a decisive edge on a single game level, but over the course of the season, NO coach will outscheme all his opponents. If the end of the season rolls around, and a team has on the whole put in a sub par performance, then only the players are to be blamed. The coaching factor will ALWAYS even out over 16 games. Coaches will not be a decisive factor between a 10-6 team, and a 5-11 team.

Early season, the losing was almost exclusively a defensive issue. Through the first half of our season, the only thing this team had going for it was the passing game. Our passing game completely fell off the map once Brunell was replaced by Campbell. This wasn't because Campbell was playing exceptionally poorly, but because our offense missed our "puss-armed" QB coming out and completing 63% week in and week out. Campbell was throwing at a Vick-like 51% through his first five starts and our offense was suffering. We lost a very significant yard and a half per attempt with #17 in. Luckily, Cooley made a gamebreaking play vs. Carolina and the defense held New Orleans quiet, or JC would have been without a win this year.

The line certainly picked up their play in the 2nd half giving Campbell time that Brunell never had, and opening planet sized holes for Ladell Betts that Portis never had. But our power/short yardage running game completely sucked all year, and without Brunell to complete short 3rd down passes, the combination of Campbell's inaccuracies and lack of a short game made us one of the leagues worst teams in third and short.

It was so bad that the 2006 Redskins had a better shot to convert 3rd and 5 than they did to convert 3rd and 2. No lie.

In summary: quit blaming coaching staffs, quit blaming Brunell, fix the defense, and god damn it fix the short yardage running game (get another TE who can block in there).

Lets get er done.

GTripp. I'm not insulting your opinion but our passing game, from the end of 05 and almost all of last year has been well below average. How can you say our passing fell off the map? IT WAS NEVER ON THE MAP w/Brunell. That is why he got benched. Brunell could not even throw for 200 yards in most of his starts. For the life of me I can't believe you think our passing game was good last year w/ Brunell. What games were you watching? The one against the NYG. when Brunell threw for 109 yards? Or was it the one against Phil. when he threw for a buck thirty? Can someone tell me how an NFL QB can only throw for 109 yards? That's just ridicules. I swear all you care about is Brunell's completion % and QB rating. Those stats don't tell the real story! Here is the real story. 3-8 and Brunell throws a 4 yards pass to Cooley and hopes he runs for a 1st down. Sorry but I blame that on the QB for not having the confidence in his arm to throw in downfield. Plus in a lot of games he was getting garbage stats at the end of halfs and when games had already been decided. Like against Indy. Stat line looks good but he didn't play well when the game hadn't been decided yet.

We have the talent on offense becasue now we have a QB who can make all the thows and the offense will not be limited to a dink and dunk passing game. When JC is behind center teams don't stack the line. They respect his arm. Opposing defenses don't respect Brunell's arm and that's why the running game sucked. 11 men were lurking around the line. Now Al S. can open it up more. Of couse JC will have to do his part and work getting better at the short passing game. But the guy didn't get any reps with the first offense until week 9 of his 2nd year. Give the guy a freakin break!

I played HS football many years ago. I was a QB. Ya know what my coach use to tell me? If your gonna play Qb for me you better be tough and you better push the ball down the field cause 1/2 the time the ref is going to call a penalty. I swear to god that's what old John Harvill use to tell me. Well at least Brunell is tough as nails. But somewhere along the line I think the guy lost his confidence to push the ball down the field.

[That Guy]

bad scouting and bad signings hurt. last year's class included two vastly overpaid players (el, carter) and two busts (lloyd, arch), not to mention that whole duckett thing.

It's cool though, I mean, it's not like the draft's ever helped anyone.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

GTripp. I'm not insulting your opinion but our passing game, from the end of 05 and almost all of last year has been well below average. How can you say our passing fell off the map? IT WAS NEVER ON THE MAP w/Brunell. That is why he got benched. Brunell could not even throw for 200 yards in most of his starts. For the life of me I can't believe you think our passing game was good last year w/ Brunell. What games were you watching? The one against the NYG. when Brunell threw for 109 yards? Or was it the one against Phil. when he threw for a buck thirty? Can someone tell me how an NFL QB can only throw for 109 yards? That's just ridicules. I swear all you care about is Brunell's completion % and QB rating. Those stats don't tell the real story! Here is the real story. 3-8 and Brunell throws a 4 yards pass to Cooley and hopes he runs for a 1st down. Sorry but I blame that on the QB for not having the confidence in his arm to throw in downfield. Plus in a lot of games he was getting garbage stats at the end of halfs and when games had already been decided. Like against Indy. Stat line looks good but he didn't play well when the game hadn't been decided yet.

We have the talent on offense becasue now we have a QB who can make all the thows and the offense will not be limited to a dink and dunk passing game. When JC is behind center teams don't stack the line. They respect his arm. Opposing defenses don't respect Brunell's arm and that's why the running game sucked. 11 men were lurking around the line. Now Al S. can open it up more. Of couse JC will have to do his part and work getting better at the short passing game. But the guy didn't get any reps with the first offense until week 9 of his 2nd year. Give the guy a freakin break!

I played HS football many years ago. I was a QB. Ya know what my coach use to tell me? If your gonna play Qb for me you better be tough and you better push the ball down the field cause 1/2 the time the ref is going to call a penalty. I swear to god that's what old John Harvill use to tell me. Well at least Brunell is tough as nails. But somewhere along the line I think the guy lost his confidence to push the ball down the field.

Well, not exactly. The only stats I care about are completion % and yards/attempt. Between them they tell pretty much the whole story. QB rating would be a lot better if they just eliminated INT/att and TD/att, since guys who complete a high percentage also throw more touchdowns and less INTs, which is what matters. INT/att and TD/att are redundant ratio stats IMO.

I also played QB in High School. That was two years ago. I wasn't anything special (to say the least), and our team wasn't that good, but we won half our games. Our offense sucked though, and I feel that if I had completed more passes, we may have won another game or two. But my coach wasn't particularly smart, and only cared about the results no matter what the context of the game was, so that may explain why I get as analytical as I can sometimes.

But one of the great things I love about Football Outsiders' stats is that they don't count all yards as equal (they aren't), nor do they worry about factors a player can't control. They just measure successful plays vs unsuccessful plays. If Brunell were to, as you suggest, throw four yards to Cooley on 3-8, and Cooley does not pick up the first, Brunell would be credited with an unsuccessful play. Yet, their system likes his 2006 performance (a lot). This tells me that Brunell was successful FAR more often than he was unsuccessful. So while the situation you suggest certainly happened a few times, you can't discard all the times the guy threw underneath to a wide open player who picked up the first down. It would be hypocritical to blame only the QB for the first scenario and credit only the receiver for the second. And judging by the linked metric, the second scenario probably vastly outweighed the first.

But because of the losing, it does not surprise me in the slightest that the very human memory of most Skins fans remembers every select individual first scenario and only a handful of the second. We were a losing team. Had we won, such as in 2005, people would be remembering the good plays and forgetting the bad. That's just human nature.

In reality, Mark Brunell put together nearly identical years in 2005 and 2006. He was actually a tad better in 2006 per the stats, but whether or not that is accurate is very debateable. But his 2005 season gets a much better rep than his 2006 simply due to the outcome of the games. Defensively, we sucked donkey balls in 2006. This is why we lost games (well, that and some untimely luck).

But the 2005 offense and the 2006 offense were strikingly similar in total end of season DVOA. (4.1% above league average in 2006 compared to 5.1% above league average in 2005) Santana Moss' drop in production (passing game) was offset by Ladell Betts' giant leap in production (running game). It is my best guess that Moss could have done a little better if Brunell had stayed in at QB. He certainly would have had more receptions. And with a guy like Moss, every reception is a threat to go the distance.

Here's the bottom line. From the day Campbell went in at QB, our offense lost a yard and a half per pass attempt and 11% completion. That is a huge dropoff. There's no other way to spin it. Our INT's went up and total TD's down. You yourself (Skinsfan69) said that you thought our offensive line play improved under Campbell (I agree). Was it because of Campbell? Perhaps, but unlikely. Now if you'll remember, our defense didn't exactly get a whole lot better at that point at all. But they did put in two good games, conviently the same number of games we won under Campbell (and yes, it was those two games).

Our offense won us a few games at the beginning of the season. Houston, Jacksonville, and that second Dallas game with the help of some timely good fortune. The two games we won under JC were the two times our D showed up last year.

I do expect that Campbell will improve immensely over the course of next year. I am on record saying that he will be the best QB in the division (better than McNabb, Manning, and Romo) no later than opening day 2008. But he's going to NEED to play better than he did last year. He's got to complete more passes, and get more yards per attempt. He will almost certainly be a better NFL QB than Brunell ever was, but don't make the mistake of believing he's there yet. At this point, he isn't better than Brunell is.

I'm not in complete disagreement that our passing game "wasn't on the map" at the beginning of last year, but to me that sounds like a cop out to nullify the loss of 11% completion and 1.5 yards/att. Because a drop in passing production such as that will cost a team games. Period. We need better QB play than what we got from JC last year.

And I think JC can bring us that improvement.